Lately, in the American trough we have been receiving a hefty load of feed about apparent hostages in Iran, being used to threaten America and ask for America to pay back debts. On these 'news' channels, we are hearing/seeing Obama ostensibly get defensive and claim we don't negotiate or pay for hostages — while the news also claims he has sent 400 millions of U.S. petro-dollars (translated of course into foreign currency?) in some secret fashion. (One wonders what an official flow chart of information control is supposed to look like. The media is above the President, for example?)

I would like to see if CluesForum readers have any understanding of what this story is supposed to mean, besides generally being another crafted indicator that "America is changing" and/or "Iran is a bully". Why are we being told to recall the "American hostage situations" of yesteryear?

And because this is all tied up with that weird stink tank think tank The Council on Foreign Relations, can it be read as anything other than yet another attempt to get Hillary/Trump into war with Iran? Is this the American government essentially being instructed by Israel and/or corrupt power groups to begin its next invasion? Or is something else happening?

Could be unfinished business spilling over from the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis.

Back then Congressman George Hansen tried to expose the whole can of worms, but was shut up and paid for it later.

The situation with Iran during the Carter administration was significantly different. When Carter arbitrarily cancelled a rural stabilization program for Iranian mullahs, undermining our ally the Shah, the retributive Ayatollah began systematically withdrawing the $2.5 billion in deposits from Chase Manhattan Bank. As the withdrawals diminished deposits to levels dangerously close to what the bank had loaned to Pahlavi’s regime, the bank feared the new regime intended to default on the loans.Carter, after allowing the Shah to fall, allowed him into New York for medical treatment. This prompted the Ayatollah to extol Iranian revolutionary students on 11/1/79 “to extend with all their might their attacks to force the U.S. to return the deposed and cruel Shah.” Just three days later the students carried out the Ayatollah’s suggestion by storming the U. S. embassy and taking 66 hostages. Ten days later, after Chase Manhattan Bank importuned to the President, Carter froze all Iranian assets in the U.S., allowing Chase to cover their Iranian loans, and then some.George Hansen, our 2nd District Congressman, who was also a ranking member of the House Banking Committee, was well aware of the tight spot Chase Manhattan Bank was in, and was convinced there was evidence of impropriety on the part of the government related to U.S. bank dealings with Iran. Hansen declared, “I really think that if congressional investigations find out anything wrong [in connection with the Shah’s regime] it’s been done by a few people lining their own pockets..and I think it is very possible that U.S. foreign policy has been conducted in such a way that allowed the opportunity for corruption to exist.”Iran wanted to expose the banking corruption during the shah’s regime. With backing from his Democrat chairman of the House Banking Committee Hansen went to Iran armed with a proposal to conduct congressional hearings exposing the corruption. Bani Sadr, who later became President of Iran, told Hansen they would free the hostages, and allow him to take some home with him, if they were promised congressional hearings, and jubilantly reported the agreement with Hansen on live Iranian radio. Carter, however, nixed that possibility and a UN investigation when he declared that there “will be no hearings … I want the hostages.” Carter by blocking the possibility of hearings scuttled what the Washington Post called “the only proposal that ever had a chance” of freeing the hostages.Hansen, who was cleared of all charges of impropriety by a 1995 Supreme Court ruling, was a man armed with what the Iranians then wanted: a forum to reveal the corrupt banking practices with the former regime, and a shot at freeing up their frozen assets.

Hansen was to pay dearly for trying to expose the reasons behind the hostage crisis.

Congressman Hansen Found InnocentAfter four years of imprisonment, after ten years of persecution, after being ruined professionally and financially and after being permanently damaged physically, in December, 1995, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Hansen's sentence for bank fraud because the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled on May 15 that Hansen's previous conviction as a member of Congress had been overturned.

But it should be known that Judge Lodge saw to it that Hansen got "diesel therapy" coming and going to prison from the Judge's court at great cost to the government, even though Hansen should have been allowed to make such trips at his own expense. On the way from his hometown of Pocatello to federal prison in Petersberg, VA , Hansen was bussed and flown, nearly immovably shackled, at taxpayer expense, to jails all over the country. Not Hansen's lawyer, his wife, nor his allies in Congress were able to locate him. Hansen had simply disappeared for a month into the custody of the Federal Marshal's Service. Hansen's wife didn't know whether he was dead or alive. And even when the Supreme Court overturned Hansen's original case and the Appeals Court vacated his current sentence, Hansen still got the Judge Lodge treatment of another dose of diesel therapy from Virginia back to Idaho.

What had Hansen, who was a model prisoner, done to deserve the most brutal, torturous and barbaric type of treatment this country's penal system is capable of inflicting on a prisoner? The answer is obvious: Hansen is Americas most famous political prisoner.

hoi.polloi » August 5th, 2016, 7:06 am wrote:I would like to see if CluesForum readers have any understanding of what this story is supposed to mean, besides generally being another crafted indicator that "America is changing" and/or "Iran is a bully". Why are we being told to recall the "American hostage situations" of yesteryear?

I think the following article I posted a few months ago succinctly answers you question, Hoi.

Why The West Created The Islamic Republic of Iran, And Why It Wants To Destroy It Now

According to conventional wisdom, Washington and Tehran have hated each other since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the Iranian-American hostage crisis that occurred shortly after. But when we look past the surface of events and official rhetoric we find very little evidence to support this claim.

The fact of the matter is that the roots of the totalitarian Islamic Republic of Iran are as much in the West as they are in Iran. The Iranian Islamic Revolution was not as romantic as the academic specialists of the West like to think, especially anti-imperialist liberals. Ayatollah Khomeini was not a Che-like figure with a beard and a turban. He had no love for the people of Iran and hated freedom. And the historical record shows that Washington's most powerful national security insiders played a key role in the formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the subsequent Iranian-American hostage crisis that culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.Symbolically, the hostage crisis was very powerful. It radicalized the Iranian people, immortalized Khomeini, made President Carter look weak, made President Reagan look strong, and made the American people hate Iran. Both totalitarian gangs in America and Iran benefited from the crisis that they created. And it has not remained in the past. American and Iranian tyrants continue to use the image of American hostages blindfolded by Iranian religious radicals for their selfish political purposes. But the people of America and Iran have suffered because of the unnatural separation between the two nations.

Thus, far from hating each other, the totalitarian rulers of America and Iran secretly love each other because they depend on each other politically and psychologically to preserve their power. During periods of economic hardship and intense political upheaval, the unjust rulers of both countries deploy the most common tactic in the ruler's playbook to defect blame from themselves and protect their ill-gotten power: Fear.

Using fear instead of love to rule over the people is Machiavelli's famous advice to rulers. In modern totalitarian states, fear is the modus operandi. American, Iranian, and Israel leaders frighten the people with totalitarian propaganda, keep their countries distracted by an external enemy, and accuse their critics of treason. This is the Nazi-model of ruling a society. People are treated as slaves and worthless animals. In America, critics of the government are not accused of being traitors, but of being conspiracy theorists, paranoid, and mentally deranged. And it has worked really well until now.

Washington's hype of the Iranian threat to the international order serves the economic and political interests of the ruling cabal in America and war-hungry freaks in Israel. America's tyrants need enemies to preserve their war-based rule and national security dictatorship. And Iran's Islamic tyrants need the Great Satan and Zionist Serpent as enemies in order to legitimize their harsh rule over Iran.

And because this is all tied up with that weird stink tank think tank The Council on Foreign Relations, can it be read as anything other than yet another attempt to get Hillary/Trump into war with Iran?

If the ‘gods’ really wanted an official U.S.-Iran war, it would have occurred a long time ago. But that wouldn’t serve much of a purpose for either side. It’s much more useful for the them to have reliable foreign boogeymen to constantly scare their populations with. Hillary/Trump’s pontifications as to how they’d ‘combat this ever-menacing threat’ sells the fairytale that they, just like the rulers of America and Iran, are bitter enemies.

Is this the American government essentially being instructed by Israel and/or corrupt power groups to begin its next invasion?

I don’t think the Israeli government has the muscle to instruct the American government. Again, an invasion wouldn’t serve the needs of the despots who rule Israel, Iran and America.

However…

Seeing as the Mullahs have lost any legitimacy/credibility they may have had with Iranians, their days are numbered. The murder rate of Morality Police Officers/Basiji (at the hands of irate citizens) continues to grow. The press doesn’t report it that way (if at all) of course! The Iranian government usually claims the Basiji died defending Iran against ‘ISIS.’ In reality, pissed off fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins and boyfriends of girls/women who’ve been (and continue to be) harassed/assaulted by bitch made Basiji/MPO’s are starting to take care of business.

The Big Mullahs biggest fear is getting overthrown from within. In the event that happens, they’re most likely counting on/lobbying for a western invasion to thwart the uprising.

Wishful thinking! They’ll find out, in due time, there’s no honor amongst the thieves they cavort with. The western powers and Iran’s Big Bazari have already made preparations for a post-Mullah Iran. The people of Iran have been well conditioned to blame all the ills of their country on the Mullahs so once they’re removed from power the people will get a great sense of ‘victory.’ The Mullahs think they’ll enjoy their ill-gotten fortunes abroad in the event of a regime change.

More wishful thinking! Once a few of them get slaughtered by Iranian expats they’ll all learn, real quickly, to live in fear for the rest of their miserable Godforsaken lives!

Back in Iran, the people have an ‘anybody but the motherf**king mullahs!’ attitude. They’ll gladly take a western style democracy over what they have now. Seeing as Iran, from its inception up to 1979, has a legacy of monarchial rule, a British style government is within the realm of possibility.

The not so RZA razor sharp Reza Pahlavi assures us that he’d combat ‘terrorists,’ global warming, and everything else the globalists point at so he has a good shot at being a figurative king of Iran. He lacks his grandfather’s gravitas and his father’s savoir faire. No vision – a perfect puppet.

Americans would be less apprehensive about Iran going ‘nuclear’ with a milquetoast Reza as the figurehead. Iranians would be proud to finally join the coveted ‘nuclear club.’ Both countries would collaborate to combat ‘terrorists’ – the freshly dethroned mullahs. So things would seemingly change…in name only! Reza could use his brother/sister’s apparent suicides/bouts with depression to convince Iranians to seek psychiatric treatment! He’ll say or do anything it takes.

Could be unfinished business spilling over from the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis.

Back then Congressman George Hansen tried to expose the whole can of worms, but was shut up and paid for it later.

With all due respect, antipodean, Hansen’s full of shit.

The situation with Iran during the Carter administration was significantly different. When Carter arbitrarily cancelled a rural stabilization program for Iranian mullahs, undermining our ally the Shah, the retributive Ayatollah began systematically withdrawing the $2.5 billion in deposits from Chase Manhattan Bank.

Carter? Salesmen like him aren’t in a position to arbitrarily change domestic/foreign policy. The funny thing is that the Shah refused to take loans from the World Bank/IMF loan sharks because Iran didn’t need IMF/WB style ‘assistance.’ In fact, Iran provided billions of dollars, in economic aid and loans, to foreign countries (i.e. Egypt, England, etc). This ‘retributive Ayatollah’ nonsense lends credence to the ‘CIA Blowback’ conspiracy candy. It reaffirms the notion they (Iranians) really hate us (Americans) and the mullahs rise to power was a natural (evolutionary) manifestation of that ‘bubbling hatred‘.

It’s tailored for the people who’re too smart to fall for the ‘they hate us for our freedumb’ mantra but not savvy enough to see through Mosaddegh’s scam.

As the withdrawals diminished deposits to levels dangerously close to what the bank had loaned to Pahlavi’s regime, the bank feared the new regime intended to default on the loans.

Carter, after allowing the Shah to fall, allowed him into New York for medical treatment.

David Rockefeller & Co. helped removed the Shah from power & expedited his allopathic assassination!

This prompted the Ayatollah to extol Iranian revolutionary students on 11/1/79 “to extend with all their might their attacks to force the U.S. to return the deposed and cruel Shah.” Just three days later the students carried out the Ayatollah’s suggestion by storming the U. S. embassy and taking 66 hostages. Ten days later, after Chase Manhattan Bank importuned to the President, Carter froze all Iranian assets in the U.S., allowing Chase to cover their Iranian loans, and then some.

More ‘cruel Shah’, ‘angry Ayatollah’ and ‘prudent banker’ horseshit.

Hansen was to pay dearly for trying to expose the reasons behind the hostage crisis.

Could be unfinished business spilling over from the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis.

Back then Congressman George Hansen tried to expose the whole can of worms, but was shut up and paid for it later.

With all due respect, antipodean, Hansen’s full of shit.

The situation with Iran during the Carter administration was significantly different. When Carter arbitrarily cancelled a rural stabilization program for Iranian mullahs, undermining our ally the Shah, the retributive Ayatollah began systematically withdrawing the $2.5 billion in deposits from Chase Manhattan Bank.

Carter? Salesmen like him aren’t in a position to arbitrarily change domestic/foreign policy. The funny thing is that the Shah refused to take loans from the World Bank/IMF loan sharks because Iran didn’t need IMF/WB style ‘assistance.’ In fact, Iran provided billions of dollars, in economic aid and loans, to foreign countries (i.e. Egypt, England, etc). This ‘retributive Ayatollah’ nonsense lends credence to the ‘CIA Blowback’ conspiracy candy. It reaffirms the notion they (Iranians) really hate us (Americans) and the mullahs rise to power was a natural (evolutionary) manifestation of that ‘bubbling hatred‘.

It’s tailored for the people who’re too smart to fall for the ‘they hate us for our freedumb’ mantra but not savvy enough to see through Mosaddegh’s scam.

As the withdrawals diminished deposits to levels dangerously close to what the bank had loaned to Pahlavi’s regime, the bank feared the new regime intended to default on the loans.

Carter, after allowing the Shah to fall, allowed him into New York for medical treatment.

David Rockefeller & Co. helped removed the Shah from power & expedited his allopathic assassination!

This prompted the Ayatollah to extol Iranian revolutionary students on 11/1/79 “to extend with all their might their attacks to force the U.S. to return the deposed and cruel Shah.” Just three days later the students carried out the Ayatollah’s suggestion by storming the U. S. embassy and taking 66 hostages. Ten days later, after Chase Manhattan Bank importuned to the President, Carter froze all Iranian assets in the U.S., allowing Chase to cover their Iranian loans, and then some.

More ‘cruel Shah’, ‘angry Ayatollah’ and ‘prudent banker’ horseshit.

Hansen was to pay dearly for trying to expose the reasons behind the hostage crisis.

Interesting stuff, the Ayatollah, The Shah & Jimmy Carter etc. being a staged Dog & Pony Show.When you say Hansen was a vicsim do you mean he never existed? Or was he used to play the role of a whistle blower, to give some candy to the conspiracy theorists?

Not necessarily, antipodean! There’s a good chance Hansen actually believed he’d stumbled across the truth. It makes him more believable to the masses. Off the top of my head, I could come up with a few dozen examples of former government /military officials who came across “TopSecret” (mis/dis)information which they earnestly seemed to believe was true. That’s what the ‘gods’ want us to think – the truth is locked up in their underground bases (Vatican catacombs).

Or was he used to play the role of a whistle blower, to give some candy to the conspiracy theorists?

Exactly!

P.S.

A word of advice for all the Iranian Uncle Toms (Jew & Gentile) out there:

You better stay low fo' you get a haloPlus wings and a gown when I come aroundSo take 10pacesand try to guess the color of my shoelaces

Frank Lopez: You see that fat bastard? That's Nacho Contreras. El gordo!He's got more cash than anybody in this place. He's a real chaza! You know what a "chaza" is?

Tony Montana: No, Frank, you tell me. What is a "chaza"?

Frank Lopez: It's the Yiddish word for "pig."The guy wants more than what he needs. He don't fly straight no more.So, it comes down to one thing, Tony boy, and you never forget it.Lesson Number 1: - Don't underestimate the other guy's greed!

I'm posting excerpts from the following articles as an introduction to Iran's Bazaari.

A Bazaari's World

Robert D. Kaplan, March 1996

To understand Iran—and perhaps even the future of other parts of the Islamic world—one must understand a man like MohsenRafiqdoost…How Rafiqdoost happened to be behind the wheel of that Chevy Blazer the day Khomeini returned to Iran, how he took control of a substantial part of the Shah's fortune, and how he converted that fortune into an even bigger financial empire—these are things for which a Marxist would have a ready answer: they are the result of Rafiqdoost's socio-economic class. In this case the Marxist would be right. Rafiqdoost is a bazaari, a member of the class of people who helped make the Iranian Revolution.

Ironically, the Marxist probably never would have identified the bazaaris as a social class in the first place. This is because Marxists see classes only as they relate to the means of production, not as they actually function. As Nikki R. Keddi has pointed out, in Roots of Revolution, bazaaris don't fall into any of the usual categories. The worker in a hole-in-the-wall shop in the bazaar is certainly in a position different from that of a big moneylender in the bazaar. But both the laborer and the moneylender are bazaaris. They are both involved in petty trade of a traditional, or nearly traditional, kind, centered on the bazaar and its Islamic culture. At least, that has been the usual definition of bazaari.

Bazaar is a Persian word that means "market." ...Bazaaris, therefore, though age-old in the historical sense, are relatively new in the political sense. The Muslim Brotherhood—the Ikhwan—in Egypt is heavily backed by bazaari types.

Although that organization, so dangerous to pro-Western regimes in the Near East, consists largely of narrowly educated men of peasant background, it is the better-educated sons of traditional bazaaris, like Rafiqdoost, being a slight step up on the social ladder, who often lead the narrowly educated men in trying to topple an established order.

In other words, bazaaris constitute a sort of newly established Islamic petty bourgeoisie. They must compete with more-experienced Christian and Jewish merchants [Bazaari], both in and outside the bazaar. This competition quickens the bazaaris' resentments, which are often similar to those that were in evidence among the petty bourgeoisie in Europe during the age of industrialization.…But the bazaari looks at religion from a businessman's point of view. As one Iranian acquaintance explained, "The bazaari is willing to bend the rules of religion for the sake of finance." The so-called hypocrisy and corruption of the Iranian clergy sometimes stem from the bazaari backgrounds of many of the mullahs.

"Describe a stereotypical bazaari," I asked a longtime foreign resident of Tehran who speaks Persian. He answered, putting it in the form of a caricature, "A bazaari is a fat guy with meaty hands and fingers like kebabs, with gold rings on them. He sits in his shop and sips tea. He trades. He makes a lot of money and he prays several times a day. He comes home at night to a big, expensive house with nothing of taste in it, where he has a wife who slaves for him."

"Yes, I am a bazaari ," a vendor in the Tehran bazaar told me. "I buy and sell things."

"In other words, you are a thief," interjected the vendor next to him, laughing.

Vahid, the son of a mullah in Tehran, told me, "A bazaari will say to himself, 'I am a man of God who prays very often, so if I say that such and such a carpet that I wish to sell to you is worth so-many rials, that is the true worth of the carpet, since a religious man like me would never lie.' Because the bazaari is religious, he believes that he is always right." He went on, "The word for 'beard' in Persian can be pashm, which also means 'wool.' The bazaari, while stroking his beard, will say to a customer regarding a carpet for sale, 'Yes, this is made of very good wool.'"…I asked Rafiqdoost about the financial particulars of the Bonyad, the Foundation of the Oppressed [how 'terrorism' is partly 'financed'!], whose 1,200 companies are involved in mining, housing construction, transportation, hotels, and tourism. In 1993, Rafiqdoost said, the Bonyad made a profit of 250 billion rials, or, in 1993 terms, roughly $100 million. "The first part of our profits go for the victims of the Shah and the wounded in the eight-year war with Iraq. The second part is for high schools in poor areas, for public-health clinics, for clothes for five hundred thousand needy students. The third part is for reinvesting."…The bazaar isn't so much filling a void in post-revolutionary Iran as it is defining the chaos. The most telling fact about the Iran of the mid-1990s is that the system of competing power centers bequeathed by the revolution is breaking down, and yet nothing, and no one, is even remotely on the horizon to serve as a replacement. The monarchy, an institution with which Iranians had a troubled history long before the Shah, has been discredited. The military is possibly too deeply divided to take back power. As for democracy, the freely elected parliament is merely a venue for factionalism and attacks against the government. True, the present ruling coalition of radical mullahs and the security services could fissure, leaving the parliament and the presidential cabinet in control. Such a development would hardly bring stability. And if, as is more likely in the short run, the power of the mullahs under Ali Khameneh'i increases, then so will the influence of the bazaaris, and of their way of doing things. …Nevertheless, while observing and listening to Rafiqdoost, I wondered, Might this be normality? Might this be it? Might Iran constitute a culture that is too urbane and sophisticated for a one-man thugocracy like the ones that obtain next door in Iraq and Syria, yet not sophisticated enough for a reasonably functioning and stable democracy? [ ] Is Iran—like so many other entities in the Middle East and Central Asia— [D]evolving into something neither authoritarian nor democratic nor even organized the way a state is ordinarily thought to be? I could not escape the conviction that the twenty-first century will see the implosion of political Islam and the rise of the Islamic bazaar state. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/03/a-bazaaris-world/304827/

Better than the past - What recent history has taught Iranians

April 25, 2003

…One major element in Iranian political history since 1890, and in particular in its movements of resistance and revolt between 1890 and 1979 has been the often effective political alliance between the bazaar, or traditional bourgeoisie, led by its large merchants, and the clergy or important parts of the clergy[Ulama]. This alliance was central to the successful movement against a British monopoly tobacco concession in 1891-92, to the revolution of 1905-11 which gave Iran parliamentary constitutional rule, even though the constitution was subsequently more honored in the breach than the observance, and the alliance reappeared in force in the revolution of 1978-79 and lasts as the underpinning of the ruling elite until today.

While this alliance may seem natural or obvious to many Iranians, it is not a significant feature of any other Middle Eastern country nor, to my knowledge, of any other Muslim country. This is in part due to the great predominance of Muslims in the Iranian bazaar class, whereas in other Middle Eastern countries minority populations often predominated, especially in the modern period where they could take advantage of their ties to the West. …AuthorNikki Keddie is professor of history at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

On 19 August 1978 in the Cinema Rex fire (Persian: آتش سوزی سینما رکس‎‎), the Cinema Rex in Abadan, Iran, was set ablaze, killing at least 470 individuals.[1] The event started when men barred the doors and doused the place with gasoline before setting it alight.The ruling government of Iran reported that Islamic militants set the fire, while the anti-Shah protesters blamed the intelligence service of the nation, SAVAK for setting the fire.[2][3] Later it was disclosed that Islamic militants set the Cinema Rex fire.[4][5][6][7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Rex_fire

As usual, the ‘death toll’ was/is all over the place.

There is speculation over the actual number of casualties incurred during the fire. Some of the numbers cited by sources include 377,[9][10] 410,[11] 430,[12] 422,[13] and over 800.[14] A 1980 Amnesty-International report states that there were 438 victims, including individuals who were tried and wrongfully executed after the fire itself.[15]

Daniel L. Bynam in the Washington Post said in 2007 that the fire was "the second-deadliest terrorist attack in modern history", after only the September 11th, 2001 attacks; it has since also been surpassed by the 2007 Kahtaniya bombings in Iraq, which killed 796.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinema_Rex_fire#Death_toll

As a result of arson fire in Abadan Cinema Rex that was conducted by SAVAK and Pahlavi agents in order to defame Islamic Revolution of Iranian people, some 377 people were terribly killed. Upon perceiving the fire, the 700 audiences of the cinema rushed towards the exit doors, but found them closed. Publication of the news, video tapes and images of the disaster severely outraged the public opinion. The regime, accusing the revolutionary forces for the fire, endeavored to depict Muslim revolutionaries as reactionary, anti-art and anti-people groups, but failed and people were more willing to accept revolutionary claims that accused the regime for the disaster. After the disaster, Imam Khomeini issued a message from Najaf addressed to habitants of Abadan on August 22, and warning against possibility of similar savage proceedings in other cities, called for more enlightenment of people. http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/305/default.aspx

Now that the Mullahs are in power the presstitutes blame them.

When Muslims Burn Jews Alive

The origins of the Islamic Revolution of Iran lay in the Cinema Rex fire in which Islamic terrorists launched a false flag operation, locked the doors of the movie theater because of its blasphemous nature and set it on fire killing four hundred people.

Two major events propelled the revolution in Iran. On the afternoon of August 19, 1978, a deliberate fire gutted the Rex Cinema in Abadan, killing 477 people, including many children with their mothers. Blocked exits prevented escape. The police learned that the fire was caused by Ruhollah Khomeini supporters, who fled to Iraq, where the ayatollah was in exile. But the international press blamed the fire on the Shah and his "dreaded SAVAK." Furthermore, the mass murder had been timed to coincide with the Shah's planned celebration of his mother's birthday; it could thus be reported that the royal family danced while Iran wept. Communist-inspired rioting swept Iran.

Foreigners, including Palestinians, appeared in the crowds. Although the media depicted demonstrations as "spontaneous uprisings," professional revolutionaries organized them. Some Iranian students were caught up in it.

Here the Shah's generosity backfired. As du Berrier pointed out:

In his desperate need of men capable of handling the sophisticated equipment he was bringing in, the Shah had sent over a hundred thousand students abroad.... Those educated in France and America return indoctrinated by leftist professors and eager to serve as links between comrades abroad and the Communist Party at home.

When the demonstrations turned violent, the government reluctantly invoked martial law. The second dark day was September 8. Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Teheran were ordered to disperse by an army unit. Gunmen — many on rooftops — fired on the soldiers. The Shah’s army fired back. The rooftop snipers then sprayed the crowd. When the tragedy was over, 121 demonstrators and 70 soldiers and police lay dead. Autopsies revealed that most in the crowd had been killed by ammo non-regulation for the army. Nevertheless, the Western press claimed the Shah had massacred his own people.

The Shah, extremely grieved by this incident, and wanting no further bloodshed, gave orders tightly restricting the military. This proved a mistake. Until now, the sight of his elite troops had quieted mobs. The new restraints emboldened revolutionaries, who brazenly insulted soldiers, knowing they could fire only as a last resort.

On the first day of the German Ardennes offensive, December 16, 1944, the worst disaster occurred. The "Rex" Cinema on avenue De Keyserlei was packed full of people in middle of the afternoon, nearly 1200 seats were occupied, all watching the featured movie. At 15.20 hrs the audience suddenly glimpsed a split-second flash of light cutting through the dark theater, followed by the balcony and ceiling crashing down during a deafening boom. A V-2 rocket had impacted directly on top of the cinema.

Charles Ostyn happened to be near the cinema that day and would later learn of a personal tragedy in his life caused by this particular rocket attack.

"December 16, 1944, is a day I can never forget. It all really sank in on us after the massacre at the Rex Cinema..." said Ostyn. He told about his feelings at that time: "I still remember that Saturday as if it were yesterday. I had walked past the theater about 20 minutes before the impact - to think, at that very moment a V-2 was being tanked-up by members of the SS Werfer Battery 500 in Holland, it being destined to kill all those people in one blinding instant."

The destruction was total. Afterwards, many people were found still sitting in their seats, stone dead. For more than a week the Allied authorities worked to clear the rubble. Later, many of the bodies were laid out at the city zoo for identification. The death toll was 567 casualties to soldiers and civilians, 291 injured and 11 buildings were destroyed. 296 of the dead & 194 of the injured were U.S., British, & Canadian soldiers. This was the single highest death total from one rocket attack during the war in Europe.

"I heard the explosion while I was traveling home on the tram. The cinema was packed with more than 1100 people and I remember the movie playing was 'The Plainsman' * with Gary Cooper and Jean Arthur (about "Wild Bill" Hickock - I was a real movie nut in my younger years). Later, I found out that my employer and his girlfriend were in the audience. Apparently, my boss took his girlfriend out to see the film on a spur of the moment decision."

James Mathieson remembers the rocket struck the cinema just at the point in the movie where “Gary Cooper had captured an Indian who informed him that General Custer and his troops had been wiped out.” Mathieson was a member of an RAF intelligence unit, one of the first permanent RAF units in Belgium, which was stationed at German Admiral Erich Raeder’s former headquarters in Antwerp.…After this shock, all theaters and cinemas were shut down and no more than 50 people were allowed to gather in any one place. People who could afford it left the city for safer parts and Antwerp became a somber and semi-deserted city. The residents remaining really felt that they were under siege.http://www.v2rocket.com/start/chapters/antwerp.html